a scheme is put into a Bill again, and gets Lord Derby's name to back it.

M.P. But do just consider. I have been riding with one of the Government, and told him of our talk; and he said it was as much as their places were worth, for the Queen not to give assent to a Government Bill. It would be worse than a majority of 100 against them.

Can. Why so?

M.P. Why? because if the House is against them, they can appeal to the country; but if the Queen is against them, there is No Appeal.

Can. Do you think they will resign?

M.P. Very likely.

Can. And only hold office till their successors are appointed? M.P. Exactly so.

Can. And would not that be a just Nemesis, for aiding and abetting to make us hold our lands, only till our usurpers come into possession?

neque enim lex justior ulla est,

Quam necis artifices arte perire sua.

But if your House should throw out the Bill, will the Ministry dissolve Parliament?

M.P. Earlier in the Session, perhaps they might; but I should think not now, so near the prorogation. I think they would brave the storm and ride it out. We've had a China dissolution, and were very likely at one time to have an Oude dissolution, but I don't think we shall have a Cathedral dissolution.

Can. If it were to come, I should not fear the result; English people love justice, and the old land-marks.

M.P. I don't think there'll be any dissolution now; there are not enough in Town to make an overwhelming majoritywe've sometimes more orders on the paper, than Members in the House-the Thames is the only overwhelming thing just now. Besides, I'm sure Ministers would not like to convulse the country when the Queen is going to Cherbourg. I speak from some experience, as you know.

Can. Then hadn't you better throw the Bill out at once, and spare us the necessity of petitioning Her Majesty?

M.P. Can't think of that; after two years' labour that would be a lame conclusion. But I hope you won't petition; on general grounds. You remember what the late Bishop of London said about the Clergy; that they did not understand the bearings of things, and that he could get a petition signed by 3000 clergymen on any Church subject.

Can. Yes! and I remember the noble reply of Julius Hare: When truth, and right, and the welfare of the Church, bid us, we will petition; but not at the beck of any man living'." It was about that very Bill of 1840, the source of all our woe. Good Charles James London! often more great in deed, than wise in speech. M.P. Great in deed, when he might have given a lease for three lives, which we reckon about equal to seventy years; and gave instead a lease for twenty-one years. I think the property was worth £1200 a year. That's too good to be buried in a

Blue Book.

Can. And wise in speech, when he said in the late Cathedral Commission in 1852, speaking of the Report which led to the Act of 1840: "I know that Report well, for I had a hand in drawing it up; but I must confess, I consider the whole question of the Cathedrals as open to discussion now." I never honoured him more than when I heard of this; for we all know how a man clings to the offspring of his own brain. A smaller man would have said, Quod dixi, dixi.

M.P. Which some one translated to King William IV.:

Tell a lie and stick to it.

Can. But I begin to think you have some special reason of your own for wishing us not to endanger the Ministry, by petitioning Her Majesty. Any little place in view?

M.P. Well! to say the truth, I should rather like to be an Estates Commissioner.

Can. O my prophetic heart! 'there is such a thing as promotion.'

1 Archdeacon Hare, Charge at Lewes, 1840.

M.P. Our Committee' state that for a long time large masses of property must remain under the control of the Estates Committee, and they recommend that the Members of it should visit the Estates in person. Now if this Bill passes (Can.-absit omen!) there must be at least three more appointed; and I should not at all dislike the work. Man is born for public service, as

Oliver Cromwell said.

Can. Nice change after Parliament; pleasant excursions, pro bono publico, and at public cost; and good shooting over the escheated lands! But all this must come out of the dormant value; as Sydney Smith said, instead of Dean, Precentor, and Chancellor, we shall have Sportsman, Gamekeeper, and Retriever. I begin to fear the gain will be on the minus side.

M.P. Oh! no-t -the Committee recommend a diminution of expense, if possible. I should keep my own dogs of course: and a little recreation helps business; as Horace says,

neque semper arcum Tendit Apollo.

Come, Canon, Let's sit awhile (near the statue of Achilles); there's plenty of time. Now tell me some more about your Dean and Canons. What did they say of the Bill?

Can. They said nothing for a long time; they sat like the Senate of Rome, when the Gauls came in upon them.

M.P. Had they seen a copy of the Bill?

Can. Yes; it lay upon the table; and there was written upon it:

BILL OF WRONGS.

M.P. Who spoke first?

Can. You must not expect me to tell all the secrets of the Chapter-House. The first who spoke said,

Hæc in nostros fabricata est machina muros:

Inspectura domos venturaque desuper urbi;

and he looked like Laocoon, coiled round with snakes, sublime in heroic endurance.

1 Report, House of Commons, 1856, p. x.
2 Report, House of Commons, 1856, p. ix.

M.P. What! did he think the Bill was full of Greeks inside? Did he strike it with the verger's mace?—I wonder whether the Trojan Horse was bigger than that horse of the Duke's. Well! what next?

Can. After a pause, another said;

QUOS NON ORIENS, NON OCCIDENS SATIAVERIT; SOLITUDINEM FACIUNT, PACEM APPELLANT.

And he looked fierce as Galgacus, with his Celts around him, when the Romans came to rifle their nest'.

M.P. I don't quite take.

Can. He meant that you and your Commission will never be satisfied till you have got the whole Church under your control.

M.P. You none of you understand the benefits of centralization! O fortunati nimium, sua si bona norint Agricolæ.

Can. That reminds me: you're quite wrong about the meeting of Chapter-members in Jerusalem chamber being satisfied with the Bill. Some of our body had letters from those who attended; one said, all the result was "miserable palliations of this destructive Bill," and another spoke of it as coming out from the Lords' Committee with aggravated evil and accelerated speed.

M.P. You will not understand that your loss is all for the gain of the Church.

Can. We know your intentions well enough; but we all feel that no blessing can be expected, where evil is done that good may follow.

Can. The next word was one from Lord Chatham's speech, against Horace Walpole':

I will not sit unconcerned while my liberty is invaded, nor look in silence upon public robbery. I will exert my endeavours at whatever hazard to repel the aggressor.

M.P. (rather uneasy, striking the ground with his whip). That doesn't apply at all to this Bill; no more than the confiscation of Oude. The cases are not parallel.

Can.

The severest of all was our Commissioner Canon.

1 Tacitus, Agricola.

2 March 6, 1741.

M.P. The one who was in Lord Derby's Cathedral Commission?

Can. Yes; but I won't tell you what he said, now.

M.P. Nothing violent, I hope?

Can. Another said quietly: GUTTA PERCHA is very useful for all sorts of purposes; elastic bands; Atlantic Telegraph; standing orders.

M.P.

What on earth did he mean by that?

Can. He explained afterwards; that with respect to Bills coming from the Lords, your standing orders strain off a farthing, and swallow a million; and he appealed to the case of a Bill, in Burke's time, thrown out by the Commons, because the Lords had altered it1.

M.P. I advise him not to let the Speaker hear that; you know the House must judge for itself; and if we think it right to protect the public against even the smallest tax, but to allow Bills from the Lords for taking away property from particular bodies; who shall gainsay it? The Lords protected the Parish Churches: if they don't think fit to protect the Cathedrals, how can you blame us?

Can. Isn't it time to move on?

M.P. Yes; we'll go down Constitution Hill, and along the water.

1 June 3, 1772. "This Bill (a Corn Bill), together with another for the levying of penalties on the killing of game, were returned by the Lords with some alterations. This matter, in the present temper, occasioned a great ferment; it was urged, that the Lords had no right to make the smallest alteration in any money Bill; and that it was telling the people, by their representatives, that they were no longer to tax themselves. It was, however, said, that money levied by way of penalty could not possibly be considered in that light; but it was replied, that it was not the sum to be levied, nor the manner of levying it, but the precedent which it might establish, and the doctrines and principles it might hereafter maintain, that were the matters of consideration; and that it was not for 40s. that the glorious Hampden contended, but for the properties, privileges, and liberties of his countrymen. The Bills were thrown out with extraordinary marks of contempt." (Annual Register, 1772).

"The Speaker, saying that he would do his part in maintaining the dignity of the House, threw the Bill over the table. The House adjourned, and as they went out, members of all parties kicked the unfortunate Bill, like a foot-ball, from one side to the other." Parl. Hist. Vol. XVII. p. 515 (quoted in Macknight's Life of Burke, Vol. I. p. 514).